Congress Blocking Search of Mark Foley's Congressional Computer

I know it's an article of faith among some around here that I never criticize Democrats, but this just pisses me off.

Quote

Floridas top police agency said Wednesday its investigation into former U.S. Rep. Mark Foleys lurid Internet communications with teenage boys has been hindered because neither Foley nor the House will let investigators examine his congressional computers.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement says it hopes to conclude its investigation next week. Foley, a Florida Republican, resigned from Congress on Sept. 29 after being confronted with the computer messages he sent to male teenage pages who had worked on Capitol Hill.

We have requested to review federally owned computers that Mr. Foley used during his time as a representative, but the U.S. House of Representatives ... cited case law restrictions that prohibited them from releasing those computers, said Heather Smith, an FDLE spokeswoman.

Click to expand...

This is where the Democrats in the HoR draw the privacy rights line? They'll allow Bush to search all of our computers and phones etc., but they won't allow one of their own to be investigated for trolling for little boys online? I understand there is a separation of powers issue, but honestly they can't find a way to make an exception for this? What the hell?

I know it's an article of faith among some around here that I never criticize Democrats, but this just pisses me off.

This is where the Democrats in the HoR draw the privacy rights line? They'll allow Bush to search all of our computers and phones etc., but they won't allow one of their own to be investigated for trolling for little boys online? I understand there is a separation of powers issue, but honestly they can't find a way to make an exception for this? What the hell?

Click to expand...

What do you expect? Wasn't there a huge bi-partisan outcry when the FBI tried to raid William Jefferson's office in the bribery investigation?

Sure there's a separation of powers but when the evidence is there why be so obstinate? What are they trying to hide?

I was waiting for someone to post this. This is so wrong I can't even begin to express how angry it makes me. That computer is government property and should be submitted as evidence. That they're holding onto it has to be illegal.

First off, I'd like to know just what "case law" prohibits law enforcement from access to Foley's computer.

Second, I suppose it could be possible that a local law enforcement agency shouldn't have access to a federal computer. I'm thinking, for example, in the case of anyone who sits on an intelligence committee. (I've no idea if this was the case here.)

But even if such were the case, it should at the very least be possible for someone like the FBI to act as a go-between, and search Foley's computer themselves. They could pass along whatever they find.

I'm just tossing off ideas. Y'all are probably right, that they're probably just covering up for one of their own.

Or worse yet, is there something in Foley's files that's incriminating to some Democrat?

I await with suspicion the House's rationale for denying anyone access. I want to know in detail their explanation for such behavior, not just some nebulous excuse like "case law".

First off, I'd like to know just what "case law" prohibits law enforcement from access to Foley's computer.

Second, I suppose it could be possible that a local law enforcement agency shouldn't have access to a federal computer. I'm thinking, for example, in the case of anyone who sits on an intelligence committee. (I've no idea if this was the case here.)

But even if such were the case, it should at the very least be possible for someone like the FBI to act as a go-between, and search Foley's computer themselves. They could pass along whatever they find.

I'm just tossing off ideas. Y'all are probably right, that they're probably just covering up for one of their own.

Or worse yet, is there something in Foley's files that's incriminating to some Democrat?

I await with suspicion the House's rationale for denying anyone access. I want to know in detail their explanation for such behavior, not just some nebulous excuse like "case law".

Click to expand...

I am also going to play devil's advocate, up to a point.

If there is a federal statute against releasing the computer, without the approval of a congressman, then it would seem that there is no discussion, except for the wisdom of the statute itself. I can see where it would have merit in a number of different situations, national security at the top of the list. However, when the computer becomes a device used in the commission of a felony, I think investigators should have rights to the evidence on the machine.

I do not support just handing the machine over to local authorities is a good idea. Their digital forensic specialists, and the investigators, do not have any reason to see things outside their narrow scope of investigation needs. So, like others have suggested, there needs to be an intermediary to protects the interest of the government, and the investigators. I can think of many ways to accomplish this, without even scratching my head.

It is not contained in the link you provided. That link was for an evidence collecting raid on the Congressman's office. Very different situations.

Click to expand...

Not entirely. There is substantial evidence that a crime has been committed, and they want to get into a Congressman's office/computer to collect more evidence. The crimes themselves may be different but the fact that law enforcement wants into the office/computer to collect evidence is similar in both cases. Congress raised a stink in both cases and in both cases it is not helping their public image.

I don't see why authorities should be blocked from searching any public officials office (no exclusions) once evidence of criminal wrongdoing has been found. Yes there is an issue of classified documents but there are many people trained in the handling of such issues and could easily oversee/supervise the authroities in their search.

Yes there is an issue of classified documents but there are many people trained in the handling of such issues and could easily oversee/supervise the authroities in their search.

Click to expand...

I think that was my point - investigators should not me prevented from gathering evidence - but in some cases it should be supervised. I would not assume that local law enforcement would be above using information maliciously.

What do you expect? Wasn't there a huge bi-partisan outcry when the FBI tried to raid William Jefferson's office in the bribery investigation?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I love that they pick this type of thing to come together over. This is why people think there's no difference between the 2 parties, but luckily it gives us a chance to prove most of us don't like corruption from either side when we criticize such things. We already proved those who said we were the partisan hacks wrong with the Jefferson and Schumer threads, but it doesn't mean they won't keep repeating it. We'll just have to keep proving them wrong.

Of course it's wrong, and there are federal agencies who could be investigating, but since they apparently aren't (some were even part of those who were helping to cover it up) someone should, especially if they want to have any credibility when they go after the Bush administration for their cover up and claims of executive privilege.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.